BA 223 - What the F*ck is going on?

mike65

This from www.bbc.co.uk

Security fears ground BA flight

The BA flight has been under the spotlight for three days
British Airways has cancelled a flight to Washington for the second day running, amid fears of a terror attack.

The decision to ground flight BA223 was "due to security reasons" and followed government advice, the airline said.

Passengers had been checking in for their trips to the US capital when BA said the plane would not be taking off.

Following intelligence from the US the same flight had been grounded on Thursday, and on New Year's Eve it was given an escort by fighter planes.

Last minute

Asked what kind of security alert led to the 1505 GMT flight being cancelled, BA said: "It is that particular flight that there are issues with, not the passengers."

William Mallett, 38, said he was "nervous" despite extra security

A spokesman told BBC News Online on Friday that the flight was cancelled "following the latest advice from the UK Government received this afternoon".

BA hoped to offer the 300 passengers alternative flights - but some were left feeling uneasy.

Among them, Deepa Menon, 28, a law student from Washington DC, said: "I am irritated.

"I am sure there are reasons - but I do wish we had known what was going on earlier."

And Svenja Steinfelder, 29, a German research fellow studying in Washington, said the scares had left her feeling "very nervous" about flying.

'Specific information'

Defence analyst Paul Beaver said the alert was based on "very high grade intelligence" and suggested some kind of attack was being planned.


Flights hit by security fears

Wednesday - BA flight 223 shadowed by fighter jets, plane searched and passengers questioned

Thursday - BA flight 223 from London to Washington cancelled

Friday - BA flight 223 from London to Washington cancelled

He said it was possible al-Qaeda or a sympathetic group based in Europe planned to hijack the plane and crash it into a building in the US or blow it up.

BBC correspondent Andy Tighe said BA bosses had been in meetings since 0900 GMT, so the late cancellation suggested "there was something happening at the last minute".

On New Year's Eve the same flight was escorted in to Washington by fighter jets, with officials searching the plane and questioning passengers for hours.

It was not allowed to fly at all on Thursday and whether or not the flight will also be cancelled on Saturday remains unclear.

Security threats

The US recently tightened security after intelligence warnings led its terror alert status to be raised to orange - the second highest level available.

Okay can anyone enlighten this viewer as to what the hell is going on?

How can one specific aircraft be considered a
security thread on 3 seperate occasions?

Is there a line of al-queada terrorists waiting to check-in at Heathrow? Is the plane itself compromised by some previous hidden, but suspected, action?

Or more likely, has the US security apparatus gone totally power mad??

Mike.

Walter Ego

Link this with the USA's recent BSE situation and watch America dip below the horizon as a tourist destination this year. I would expect a knock effect to tourism by Americans to Europe as they won't want to be shot down by their own fighters on the way back.

Frank Grimes

I've heard somewhere (don't have any links) that "chatter" or whatever they call it was picked up mentioning that flight number.
So I guess they've nothing to go on other than that flight number, so they're taking no chances at all.

mr_angry

If I had a ticket that said "BA223" at the moment, I would be most definitely chucking it in the bin!

dod

Fair enough, you don't expect them to tell us everything they know under the circumstances, but they must have some fairly specific information on an individual or group of individuals planning to take this flight that will somehow endanger the flight, the passengers, or a specific target.

If I was the pilot, I would resign immediately. Jesus, why would you fly a plane that you've practically been told has been a target for being taken out, and even if there were no on-board threats, you've got trigger happy American fighter pilots escorting you who'll take you out of the sky at the slightest suggestion of a problem?

Whether there is a specific threat or not, it's the chaos that the paranoia causes that creates the difficulties/ tensions/ disruptions etc. that the would-be terrorists want. And this sort of tension cannot be sustained indefinitely - the travelling public just won't stand for it.

Interesting to see how this whole thing pans out, or whether it will just be quietly swept under the carpet with a 'No Comment' from Jack Straw or something.


(below from rte.ie/news)

ritish Airways has cancelled its afternoon flight from London to Washington for a second consecutive day after receiving what has been described as 'security advice' from the British government.

The cancellation announcement for flight BA 223 was made as passengers for the flight were checking in at Heathrow Airport.

The plane had been due to leave at 3.05pm, but BA announced it had been cancelled at 1.15pm - less than two hours before take off.

Yesterday's flight BA223 was also cancelled several hours before it was scheduled to depart after BA received security advice from the Government.

On New Year's Eve, the same flight had been kept on the runway for three hours after landing at Washington Dulles International Airport to allow security officials to board the plane and question passengers.

The Boeing 747 was escorted into Dulles by two F-16 fighter jets.

An Aeromexico flight from Mexico City to Los Angeles was also cancelled after US authorities refused to allow it to land.

Flight 490 was cancelled after Homeland Security officials said they were concerned it might be a safety risk, according to a spokesman for Mexico's President Vicente Fox.

dahamsta

Ah well, at least the UK Government will find it easier to justify the sky marshals the US Government is demanding now, eh?

Who was it tipped BA off again? *koff*

adam

BuffyBot

I think it's something to so with the flight number rather than passengers. No doubt something has been found out which mentions BA 223 specifically. It will be interesting to see what trhat is, if we ever get to know!

dod

Maybe some clever FBI man has come across a copy of Nostradamus as part of an "intelligence" gathering operation.

"The day birds offer themselves up to the heavens...and the bird shall be called BA223 carrying shoppers on the way to the New Year sales..." yadda yadda yadda.

Christ, I hope this sort of thing isn't the sort of "chatter" they monitor.

gandalf

Another theory is these flights are being cancelled because the US is demanding that "Sky Marshalls" have to be deployed on them and the pilots are refusing (quite rightly in my opinion) to fly with gun(s) on board.

All I feel is that this is the beginning of the scare mongering from the Bush camp with the upcoming Elections this year. Nothing better than a scared electorate to re-elect a lame duck president and his cronies.

Gandalf.

Lennoxschips

Link this with the USA's recent BSE situation and watch America dip below the horizon as a tourist destination this year

I dunno, with every Euro buying you $1.25 at the moment I have a feeling there will be quite a higher than average number of European tourists visiting the US this year.

dahamsta

Heh, I'm on gandalf's ignore list.

gandalf

LOL A you'd never be on my ignore list. Your posts, emm how do I say this, ah yes are too "entertaining" .

I just expanded on your point (or something!).

Gandalf.

Exit

BA263 to Riyadh tomorrow cancelled also. No other news yet.

dahamsta

Originally posted by gandalf
LOL A you'd never be on my ignore list. Your posts, emm how do I say this, ah yes are too "entertaining"

It's a Cork thing.

dahamsta

All over the shop...

Passenger with penknives held on jet
02/01/2004 - 5:28:08 pm

Spanish police boarded a plane bound for England and removed a passenger who was later found to have two penknives in his possession, news reports said today.

The passenger, identified only by his initials EGD, from Chile, was taken of the easyJet plane in Madrid last night after the captain halted takeoff when the passenger started talking aloud about the end of the world, the national news agency Efe said.

[...]

Security scare grounds new flight
British Airways has cancelled a flight to Saudi Arabia hours after grounding a Washington flight amid fears of a terror attack.
Flight BA263 was due to leave for the Saudi capital Riyadh from London at 1330 GMT on Saturday.

The move follows the cancellation of the BA223 flight from Heathrow to Washington for the second day running.

And on Wednesday the same flight was held on the tarmac in the US capital while agents questioned passengers.

BA also said it cancelled a flight to Riyadh on Wednesday, and is reviewing whether to fly on Monday. The return flight on Saturday has also been cancelled.

[...]

My tinfoil hat's going mental here.

adam

SkepticOne

Could be a terror group testing their communications channels for leaks. Pretend to plan an attack and see what happens on the news. Also test the responses of the intelligence services - see if they are behaving in a predictable fashion. At worst, the disruption helps their percieved cause much like the IRA bomb hoaxes in London. For every real bomb there were 10 or more bomb scares.

dahamsta

Originally posted by SkepticOne
Could be a terror group testing their communications channels for leaks.

Could be, could be. Could be hawks doing what Hermann Goering says in my sig too. One's as bad as the other.

adam

kensutz

Apparently on BBC they said that a known american terrorist was due to board the plane and then divert it to Washington into a civilian target. That's all they said so far.

dahamsta

Rare that we hear about domestic terrorists when there's all these non-christians to blame. Must've been a slip up somewhere.

adam

SkepticOne

Originally posted by dahamsta
Could be, could be. Could be hawks doing what Hermann Goering says in my sig too.

I was just suggesting a further possibility. Obviously there are several possible explanations including your's.

Sand

Most likely the flights were cancelled because intelligence indicated that they might be at risk. Better safe than sorry when even the slight possibility off firing flaming death for all on board and probably quite a lot on the ground below has to be factored in. This intelligence could be wrong. That is *always* the case. Its a judgement call which the various security and intelligence forces might possibly be better able to make than the average internet poster. The worst that can occur from being over-protective is a missed flight - the worst that can occur from the opposite " Al-Qaueda?- pffft " mentality is another 9/11. Which of course was a zionist / bush conspiracy if you read reliable sources like standown.net because the security and intelligence forces didnt stop it.

They cant win can they?

mr_angry

The worst that can occur from being over-protective is a missed flight

Only if you discount the damage done to the already-struggling airline industry. I see more US protectionism on the horizon. On another note, I can see every drunken passenger who thinks it would be funny to shout "This is a hijacking" causing havok between now and the end of the decade, particularly if trigger-happy "air-marshalls" are employed.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by Sand
They cant win can they?

If there was a genuine terrorist threat and they allowed the flight to proceed then it would be proof that this US so called "war on terror" is rubbish - just a pretext for further hegemony, otherwise surely they would have done something to prevent the very thing they claim to be at war against.

Sand

Only if you discount the damage done to the already-struggling airline industry.

Missed flight vs another 9/11.

What will do more damage to an already struggling airline industry? Bear in mind whats brought about that already struggling industry. Why is corporate profit important compared to even the slight possibility of fiery death for ordinary decent people who happen to be on a flight where the security forces said "Well its *possible* terrorists might attack this flight - but we dont want to cause a scare and hurt BAs bottom line".

On another note, I can see every drunken passenger who thinks it would be funny to shout "This is a hijacking" causing havok between now and the end of the decade, particularly if trigger-happy "air-marshalls" are employed.

If you take into account sky marshals will be armed then Id consider that Darwinism in action and regardless of the legalities, the Sky marshal would be doing humanity a favour by removing the "joker" from the gene pool.

Yeah I know, Im evil to say it. Dont tell me you didnt chuckle when you heard of the guy in the cessna trying his own re-enactment of 9/11. That was Darwinism too.

you've got trigger happy American fighter pilots escorting you who'll take you out of the sky at the slightest suggestion of a problem?

According to the truth at standdown.net theyd probably give you an escort to your target - assuming you were a terrorist pilot of course. Ive never heard of us fighter pilots shooting down a airliner. ( Yes, smartarses, Im aware the U.S. Navy shot down an airliner during the Gulf War )

mike65

Originally posted by mr_angry
On another note, I can see every drunken passenger who thinks it would be funny to shout "This is a hijacking" causing havok between now and the end of the decade, particularly if trigger-happy "air-marshalls" are employed.

In the 70s when "sky-jacking" was an international passtime that sort of thing occassional happened though I dont think anyone actually got shot!

On flight BA223 - word had it the pilots wre not willing to fly with marshalls on board, while another piece in the Sunday Times this morning writes about a full scale
attempt to hi-jack several aircraft inlcuding BA223 and crash them into nuclear power plants on the US east coast.


Mike.

sovtek

I don't have a link but on BBC yesterday they reported that some of the passengers given to British authorities by the American's was a 5 year old kid.
I'm all for being secure but when the people that are supposedly in charge of making that so are such incompetent idiots.........

Originally posted by sovtek

I'm all for being secure but when the people that are supposedly in charge of making that so are such incompetent idiots.........

To be brutally honest with you,errors and ommissions excepted I would prefer that extraordinary measures were being taken as they are to protect the innocent lives of airline passengers against the actions of ruthless terrorists.
It's not as if a five year old potential passenger was interogated for hours in a police cell.
One is better safe than sorry, and in the process the old addage "the man that never made a mistake, never made anything " springs to mind.

dahamsta

Where's your line Man? Would you be happy to live in America right now, where you can be arrested without probable cause and held for an indeterminate time without access to legal representation and your family?

Or in this particular case, are you happy for these events to continue with /no explanation/ from the UK Government as to why the flights were held? Do you like being nannied or would you prefer to make your own decisions?

adam

mr_angry

What will do more damage to an already struggling airline industry? Bear in mind whats brought about that already struggling industry. Why is corporate profit important compared to even the slight possibility of fiery death for ordinary decent people who happen to be on a flight where the security forces said "Well its *possible* terrorists might attack this flight - but we dont want to cause a scare and hurt BAs bottom line".

Don't get me wrong - another 9/11 would be far worse. I was just pointing out that this is not just a case of missed flights as far as the airline industry is concerned - its nearly the death knell for a lot of companies.

The Muppet

I would imagine that americans like the rest of us would like to be able to go about their normal business without being nannied. Unfoutunately Since 9/11 that is no longer possible. I know which I would choose given the choice between missing a flight and being used as a Human bomb . How many of the passenger on the planes that were crashed on 9/11 do you think would still have flown if the knew what was going to happen?

Where's your line Man? Would you be happy to live in America right now, where you can be arrested without probable cause and held for an indeterminate time without access to legal representation and your family?

well I'd trust the professionals to be looking after security and blame the terrorists for taking away some of my freedoms as a price for my safety-yes

Would you have relaxed restrictions on where you could park in town centres in NI at the height of the troubles there for instance when the IRA was blowing them up or would you have taken the view "ah shur what the heck, lets sit back relax and let the terrorists carry on they'll soon get fed up...??"

dahamsta

well I'd trust the professionals to be looking after security and blame the terrorists for taking away some of my freedoms as a price for my safety-yes

These would be the self-same professionals that:

- knew about September 11 months before it happened?
- released over a hundred "enemy combatants" from Guantanamo Bay without charge?
- employed someone arrested for DWI while on duty as their TSA chief in Dulles Airport?

Would you have relaxed restrictions on where you could park in town centres in NI at the height of the troubles there for instance when the IRA was blowing them up

I wasn't aware that you could be arrested without probably cause and held without access to legal representation or your family at the height of the troubles. Not legally anyway.

adam

gandalf

OK then we are going slightly off topic but think about this please.

You are on a flight and it is hijacked. Do you sit in your seat and wait to see what happens are do you take action. I know myself I would go on the offensive.

Now lets say your a group of terrorists and you know theres a sky marshall on board. You would get one of your number to try and hijack the plane. The Sky Marshall would identify himself (probably by wasting your colleague) and you would jump the Sky Marshall and you can throw away your stanley knifes as you now have a gun

I see that this flight has been delayed again today http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3367551.stm . If I were a terrorist I would be a damn stupid one if I decided to take this flight now wouldn't I. I still think this is occuring on a regular basis because the UK pilots are resisting having Sky Marshalls on board.

Gandalf.

Originally posted by dahamsta

These would be the self-same professionals that:

- knew about September 11 months before it happened?
- released over a hundred "enemy combatants" from Guantanamo Bay without charge?
- employed someone arrested for DWI while on duty as their TSA chief in Dulles Airport?

adam

Well they knew about sept 11th and did nothing about it??
But now they are trying to prevent a similar event , whats wrong with that?

While I wont condone Guantanamo, i will say, detention without trial was tried and abandoned in NI foer a while was it not? and roundabout the time of the Guilford and birmingham pub bombings in the UK, there was no sympathy for any IRA suspects and Irish people were treated with suspicion in general.
Indeed the subsequently freed and innocent Birmingham six were spat at during their trial.

This is what happens when a people are directly under threat and a government can consequently get away with the measures it takes-rightly or wrongly.

And as regarding hiring, potential wrong do-ers,no system is perfect ( recent example being Soham ) but highlighting the imperfections and putting up with security inconveniences with respect to air travel is good if it saves innocent lives.

I wasn't aware that you could be arrested without probably cause and held without access to legal representation or your family at the height of the troubles. Not legally anyway.

Unfortunately yes at one point you could

Moriarty

Heh.

dahamsta

Originally posted by Man
Well they knew about sept 11th and did nothing about it??
But now they are trying to prevent a similar event , whats wrong with that?

No, I'm afraid that's the cheap way out. The fact remains that these "professionals" regularly demonstrate incompetence and have given us no reason to start trusting them all of a sudden. If you want to trust them, that's your lookout. The question stands: Where do you draw the line? Cameras on your street? In your living room? In your bedroom? Internment in Guantanamo? How about something more Belsen-like? An oven sir?

As to Norn Iron, were warrants issued for these arrests? Did they have access to lawyers? Did they have access to their families? In all honesty, I don't know, but I will say that if /I/ was arrested, I would want to be seen as innocent until proven guilty, I would want to see a lawyer, I would want to talk to my family. Comparing like with like doesn't make the horrendous behaviour of the Bush administration right.

adam

Originally posted by dahamsta
No, I'm afraid that's the cheap way out. The fact remains that these "professionals" regularly demonstrate incompetence and have given us no reason to start trusting them all of a sudden.
adam

Thats fine, but still their government has the right to protect their citizens and that has extended to jets flying to the states from foreign countries.
Now who do you think, errors and ommisions excepted,the people who elect them will trust more to do that,the terrorists (with no regard for an innocent passenger) or the security officials??
I'm saying these measures are perfectly understandable in the circumstances, I certainly feel safer with them in place and passengers interviewed at Heathrow on BBC news in recent days overwhelmingly agreed.
The why's and wherefores of what could be done and undone to make madmen less inclined to fly planes into buildings or blow them up are for another thread.
The practicalities of their existence and what is being done to prevent planes being blown up by these mad men is what i thought was being discussed here.

Regarding internment in Northern Ireland or anywhere, what you want Adam and what your government might consider necessary won't always coincide.

dahamsta

Originally posted by Man
Thats fine, but still their government has the right to protect their citizens and that has extended to jets flying to the states from foreign countries.

I don't object to security measures, I'm not insane. What I object to is the ongoing institution of these security measures behind a veil of secrecy, with no transparency and no oversight. I object to the willingness of people to accept these measures with nary a question or a raised eyebrow.

People have taken people like Tony Blair and George Bush on trust, and they have consistently been not just wrong, but intentionally wrong. They've lied point-blank about WMDs, they've lied about ties between Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, between Afghanistan and Iraq, etc.

People like yourself continue to defend them, as is your right. I'm just curious as to what it will take to change your mind. How many more lies will you accept? Will it take arrest without a warrant? The aforementioned cameras in your home?

You tiptoe around this, perhaps because you think I'm being facetious, but it's a serious question. Perhaps you don't feel there's an answer, but surely everybody has limits?

Regarding internment in Northern Ireland or anywhere, what you want Adam and what your government might consider necessary won't always coincide.

I don't dispute that, and the same goes for all aspects of life. My line in the sand just seems to be further back than others. I don't accept trusisms like "if you have nothing to hide" on spec, I want limits and I want transparency. A little truth and a lot less of the lies and misdirection would be a start though. When's that going to start?

adam

dahamsta

Here's a nicely timed example. Is this before your line in the sand? After it?

adam

Torture by proxy
How immigration threw a traveler to the wolves
Christopher H. Pyle
Sunday, January 4, 2004

On Sept. 26, 2002, U.S. immigration officials seized a Syrian-born Canadian at Kennedy International Airport, because his name had come up on an international watch list for possible terrorists. What happened next is chilling.

Maher Arar was about to change planes on his way home to Canada after visiting his wife's family in Tunisia when he was pulled aside for questioning. He was not a terrorist. He had no terrorist connections, but his name was on the list, so he was detained for questioning. Not ordinary, polite questioning, but abusive, insulting, degrading questioning by the immigration service, the FBI and the New York City Police Department.

He asked for a lawyer and was told he could not have one. He asked to call his family, but phone calls were not permitted. Instead, he was clapped into shackles and, for several days, made to "disappear." His family was frantic.

Finally, he was allowed to make a call. His government expected that Arar's right of safe passage under its passport would be respected. But it wasn't. Arar denied any connection to terrorists. He was not accused of any crimes, but U.S. agents wanted him questioned further by someone whose methods might be more persuasive than theirs.

So, they put Arar on a private plane and flew him to Washington, D.C. There, a new team, presumably from the CIA, took over and delivered him, by way of Jordan, to Syrian interrogators. This covert operation was legal, our Justice Department later claimed, because Arar is also a citizen of Syria by birth. The fact that he was a Canadian traveling on a Canadian passport, with a wife, two children and job in Canada, and had not lived in Syria for 16 years, was ignored. The Justice Department wanted him to be questioned by Syrian military intelligence, whose interrogation methods our government has repeatedly condemned.

The Syrians locked Arar in an underground cell the size of a grave: 3 feet wide, 6 feet long, 7 feet high. Then they questioned him, under torture, repeatedly, for 10 months. Finally, when it was obvious that their prisoner had no terrorist ties, they let him go, 40 pounds lighter, with a pronounced limp and chronic nightmares.

Why was Arar on our government's watch list? Because "multiple international intelligence agencies" had linked him to terrorist groups. How many agencies? Two. What had they reported? Not much.

The Syrians believed that Arar might be a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. Why? Because a cousin of his mother's had been, nine years earlier, long after Arar moved to Canada. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police reported that the lease on Arar's apartment had been witnessed by a Syrian- born Canadian who was believed to know an Egyptian Canadian whose brother was allegedly mentioned in an al Qaeda document.

That's it. That's all they had: guilt by the most remote of computer- generated associations. But, according to Attorney General John Ashcroft, that was more than enough to justify Arar's delivery to Syria's torturers.

[...]

shotamoose

Originally posted by dahamsta
People have taken people like Tony Blair and George Bush on trust, and they have consistently been not just wrong, but intentionally wrong. They've lied point-blank about WMDs, they've lied about ties between Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, between Afghanistan and Iraq, etc.

But WMD and flight security are completely different issues. I don't trust Blair or Bush an inch on WMD, but I'm more inclined to believe that the recent events surrounding delay or cancellation of flights are not part of some secret self-serving conspiracy. Why? Because it's not clear what they stand to gain from manipulating flight security in this way, and because it would be difficult for political leaders to interfere in flight security without someone getting wind of it.

People like yourself continue to defend them, as is your right. I'm just curious as to what it will take to change your mind. How many more lies will you accept? Will it take arrest without a warrant? The aforementioned cameras in your home?

Again, these are distinct issues. If they were proposing mandatory body cavity searches of every passenger bound for the US, I'd have a problem with it. Whenever they have interned passengers or simply exported them for torture as in the case of the Canadian guy, I have a problem with it. But delaying or cancelling planes to double-check who is boarding is completely different.

And there's some cases in which more transparency isn't necessarily a good thing. The whole point of security measures is that we don't always want to reveal exactly how they work, since that would make it easier for those who wanted to get by them to do so.

Originally posted by dahamsta
I don't object to security measures, I'm not insane. What I object to is the ongoing institution of these security measures behind a veil of secrecy, with no transparency and no oversight. I object to the willingness of people to accept these measures with nary a question or a raised eyebrow.

I'd call being open transparent and public about aspects of the security regarding the boarding and flying of planes more worthy of the description of being insecure rather than secure.
Theres a way into my house when it's all locked up but I'm not going to advertise it.
Similarally, the more security at the expense of convenience,( in a climate where mad men may bring the plane that I fly on, down ) that there is the more willing I am, (and I'd feel confident that the majority of regular fliers would agree) to fly.

As regards your comments on Blair and Bush, and my willingness to defend them ( which is a mystery to me especially in the case of the latter ) ... That matters not one iota to the measures required to keep air passengers safe when there are mad men about willing to kill them.

I wouldnt defend the case you bring up either regarding the poor justice meated out to an innocent at Kennedy but then this is no different to anywhere that a serious threat to human life is being tackled.
Mistakes will be made.
Indeed I know of a case where an individual in the early ninties was detained at an airport in the U.K and given a very bad bashing, by overzealous officers because he was Irish and "suspicious".
Indeed mistakes are made every day in justice systems all over the world even without the fear instilled by a threat to innocent lives.
But then and rightly so, such things are where possible brought to the public eye, from what I've read, it wouldn't be high on the agenda of AlQu'eda to put what we would accept as human rights ahead of their aims.

dahamsta

I'd call being open transparent and public about aspects of the security regarding the boarding and flying of planes more worthy of the description of being insecure rather than secure.

No limits then?

Similarally, the more security at the expense of convenience,( in a climate where mad men may bring the plane that I fly on, down ) that there is the more willing I am, (and I'd feel confident that the majority of regular fliers would agree) to fly.

Again, no limits? Every time you fly you have to strip naked and be searched, including the infamous finger in the rectum. Every time you fly it will take 12 hours for the (invariably utterly unqualified) security staff to process everyone. When you arrive, another search and internal examination, another 12 hours. That ok for you? That's "more security" like.

As regards your comments on Blair and Bush, and my willingness to defend them ( which is a mystery to me especially in the case of the latter ) ...

My apologies, I wasn't referring to direct support of Bush and Blair, but indirect support via defense of their security policies, lies and misdirection.

Mistakes will be made.

Oooh, that sounded like a Cork soundbite, although you should have capitalised Made. Your alter-ego perhaps?

Oh, and how many mistakes? How large can the mistakes be?

adam

Originally posted by dahamsta

Again, no limits? Every time you fly you have to strip naked and be searched, including the infamous finger in the rectum. Every time you fly it will take 12 hours for the (invariably utterly unqualified) security staff to process everyone. When you arrive, another search and internal examination, another 12 hours. That ok for you? That's "more security" like.
adam

I wasnt aware that every passenger was being strip-searched etc aren't you being a tad melodramatic there in the face of a threat to innocent passengers?
I certainly don't object in the case of U.S travel, finger printing and I've already been photographed in Gatwick a few times, it took about ten seconds.

Oooh, that sounded like a Cork soundbite, although you should have capitalised Made. Your alter-ego perhaps?
Oh, and how many mistakes? How large can the mistakes be?

Cork soundbytes... heh!
Arguing for perfection is fine, but you ain't going to get it.
As regards mistakes, their upside, is that we learn from them usually.
I'd have thought that politicians in the U.S would get a right ear bashing if a foreign plane did a sept 11th due to the security measures being more lax than those for an internal flight.

parsi

Originally posted by Man
well I'd trust the professionals to be looking after security and blame the terrorists for taking away some of my freedoms as a price for my safety-yes

Hmm.. trust the professionals..

"A Homeland department employee's prank e-mail prompted the release of an
immigration agency detainee who had been convicted of kidnapping, according
to the department's Inspector General. The unidentified detainee turned
himself in to Immigration and Customs Enforcement deportation officers two
days after his improper release. The employee sent an April Fool's e-mail
to 16 ICE detention officers and supervisors advising them that the
detainee's citizenship had been established with a Puerto Rican birth
certificate, which authorized his release. At the end of the e-mail, the
employee wrote, "Now about that bridge I'm selling. April Fools!" Nine
minutes later, the employee sent a second e-mail that began by saying, "In
case you didn't get to the end of my previous message, here's what really
happened today." The second message said that the detainee had been ordered
deported to the Dominican Republic. A homeland officer who read the first
prank e-mail but did not note the April Fools reference, and did not read
the second e-mail, processed paperwork that authorized the detainee's
release from a county jail on 2 Apr. [Source: Wilson P. Dizard III,
Government Computer News (gcn.com), 28 Nov 2003; PGN-ed]

http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/23.07.html#subj11 "

(Reused without explicit authorization under blanket permission granted for all Risks-Forum Digest materials. The author(s), the RISKS moderator, and the ACM have no connection with this reuse.)

dahamsta

Originally posted by Man
I wasnt aware that every passenger was being strip-searched etc aren't you being a tad melodramatic there in the face of a threat to innocent passengers?

I didn't suggest that every passenger was being strip-searched, I simply asked where your limits lie? Since I've asked the question several times now and you seem incapable of answering, I can only assume you have none.

I certainly don't object in the case of U.S travel, finger printing and I've already been photographed in Gatwick a few times, it took about ten seconds.

When I've been convicted of a crime, the Irish Government is perfectly entitled to retain my fingerprints on file. That's about as far as I'm willing to go. The U.S. Government wasn't able to prevent September 11 with the substantial amount of data they had, and it appears that all they've done with the new mountains of data is abuse it to infringe on people's civil liberties. If their security initiatives are in any way successful, I'd imagine we'd have heard about it by now.

Cork soundbytes... heh!

Ok, I take it back. That was nasty.

Arguing for perfection is fine, but you ain't going to get it.

Where did I argue for perfection? I'm arguing for balance. A contrary view does not automatically mean I'm at the other end of the spectrum you know.

adam

mr_angry

I agree with dahamsta, to some degree anyway. The people responsible for security have to be accountable in some way for mistakes they make. It's simply not good enough to suggest that "mistakes will be made". We're not looking for absolute perfection here, but there are clear examples of very serious wrongdoing on behalf of the American security forces in the past year. And I don't think the idea of strip-searching every woman with a Muslim name will go down too well outside of the Western world, do you?

As it happens, I share my name with a convicted IRA man who was organising the shipment of arms back from Florida about 6 years ago. I'd rather not be sent to Syria and be investigated by Syrian interrogaters for such a chance connection, if that's alright with you? I hope I'm not being too 'lefty' for your peace of mind.

Originally posted by dahamsta
I didn't suggest that every passenger was being strip-searched, I simply asked where your limits lie? Since I've asked the question several times now and you seem incapable of answering, I can only assume you have none.
adam

Well I wouldn't be qualified to answer that question.
I did state however that I found the current measures acceptable in the face of the current threat and that many passengers interviewed by the BBC at Heathrow were happy to fly when they knew such measures were being taken.

I also suggested that mass strip-searching all passengers being the next step was a tad melodramatic.
I've noticed more and more as I travel on planes, that I am being asked to take off my shoe though.
That is acceptable and a not even a minor inconvenience given that someone( a madman ) tried to blow up a plane with a shoe bomb.

Where did I argue for perfection? I'm arguing for balance. A contrary view does not automatically mean I'm at the other end of the spectrum you know.

Ok let me expand slightly for clarification as I said earlier in this thread the man that never made a mistake never made anything .
If mistakes are not made that is perfection is it not?
Mistakes are made by everybody every day regardless of how near or far from perfect they are at their job or how well qualified, and that goes for the implimentation of security at airports as much as anything else.
I wouldn't and have stated already condone the mistakes but at the same time I would be learning from them rather than using them as a "nit-pick" to back track on stringent security at airports.
To do so would be ( unintentionally in most cases ) a friend of the terrorist.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by dahamsta
Where did I argue for perfection? I'm arguing for balance. A contrary view does not automatically mean I'm at the other end of the spectrum you know.

By balance presumably you mean that the measures taken need to be weighed up against the actual security risks.

mr_angry

To do so would be ( unintentionally in most cases ) a friend of the terrorist.

Its nice to see the "You're either with us or against us" mentality is still alive and kicking. Anyway, we're not suggesting that nobody at all should be inconvenienced. We are suggesting that the security forces are held accountable for what they do wrong. Just as I am held accountable for what I do wrong.

If I beat up a man in a chip shop because I think he was looking at the till funny, do I get the Attourney General telling me it was alright because it was in the name of crime prevention? What about if I'm extremely paranoid about crime? What if the man looks a bit like another known criminal?

The answer is no. I just expect the same standards to apply to the airline security "professionals". Is that too much to ask?

sovtek

Originally posted by Man
Ok let me expand slightly for clarification as I said earlier in this thread the man that never made a mistake never made anything .
If mistakes are not made that is perfection is it not?
Mistakes are made by everybody every day regardless of how near or far from perfect they are at their job or how well qualified, and that goes for the implimentation of security at airports as much as anything else.
I wouldn't and have stated already condone the mistakes but at the same time I would be learning from them rather than using them as a "nit-pick" to back track on stringent security at airports.
To do so would be ( unintentionally in most cases ) a friend of the terrorist.

When you look at how many mistakes have been made then at some point you must consider that they aren't learning from their mistakes...or maybe there's some other motivation for drawing such attention.

Originally posted by mr_angry
Its nice to see the "You're either with us or against us" mentality is still alive and kicking. Anyway, we're not suggesting that nobody at all should be inconvenienced. We are suggesting that the security forces are held accountable for what they do wrong. Just as I am held accountable for what I do wrong.

If I beat up a man in a chip shop because I think he was looking at the till funny, do I get the Attourney General telling me it was alright because it was in the name of crime prevention? What about if I'm extremely paranoid about crime? What if the man looks a bit like another known criminal?

The answer is no. I just expect the same standards to apply to the airline security "professionals". Is that too much to ask?

Well if thats your position, I don't think I've disagreed with it.
I've merely said that exposing security measures to the light removes any security they bring.
I've already agreed with what you have stated regarding accountability where wrongs are committed as a result of mistakes.
My position on the current measures as stated is that I am happy with them if they save lives, the inconvenience is actually fairly minor in conjunction with twarting the efforts of madmen to kill innocent passengers.

Originally posted by Sovtek
When you look at how many mistakes have been made then at some point you must consider that they aren't learning from their mistakes...or maybe there's some other motivation for drawing such attention.

Hmmm, how many passengers travel through JFK and other U.S international airports every day Sovtek? And what percentage of these have been subjected to an error ? A very small price methinks to pay considering the level of madness in the brains of people that wish to blow up innocent air travellers.